The House of Representatives on
Thursday voted against a clause that would have weakened the powers of the
president in the process of the alteration of the Constitution, the foundation
of the nation’s legal system.

Both chambers, Senate and House
of Representatives, concluded voting on the alteration of the 1999 Constitution
via “Bills to Further alter the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Bill, 1999.”

On the whole, the two Houses
considered the amendment to 33 sections of the Constitution based on the
reports of their ad-hoc committees on constitution review with the Senate
approving 29 and the House approving 24.

While the upper house began and
concluded the amendment on Wednesday, the lower legislative chamber concluded
the exercise on Thursday.

Both chambers have the powers
under section 9 of the Constitution to amend the document.

While the Senate requires 72
votes, representing two-thirds, to approve the amendment to any section of the
document, 240 votes are required in the House of Representatives for that
purpose.

It states, “National Assembly can
pass an Act to amend the Constitution when its proposal to amend the
constitution has been supported by two-thirds majority of all the members of
each chamber and is approved by the resolution of at least 24 House of Assembly
of the states.”

However, the procedure to strip
the president of powers to assent to the amendment to the provisions of the
constitution requires four fifth votes of the members of both chambers.

Section 9 (1) of the Constitution
says, “The National Assembly may, subject to the provisions of this section
alter any of the provisions of this Constitution;

(2) Any act of the National
Assembly for the alteration of this constitution, not being an Act to which
section 8 of this constitution applies, shall not be passed in either House of
the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less
than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by
resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the
States;

(3) An Act of the National
Assembly for the purpose of altering the provisions of this section, section 8
and Chapter IV of this constitution shall not be passed by either House of the
National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by the votes of not less than
four fifths majority of all the members of each House and also approved by
resolution of the House of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the
states

In exercising its power in
Section 9 (3), 92 Senators voted to strip the president of powers to assent
amendments made to the Constitution.

However, the House could not
muster the four-fifth votes, which is about 288 votes required to effect the
amendment as it was backed by only 271 members, while 20 voted against and none
abstained.

If the amendment had been carried
with the concurrence of the House of Representatives and further approved by
two-thirds (24) of the 36 State Houses of Assembly, the legislature would have
had sweeping powers to alter the nation’s constitution without any role for the
president.

The leader of the House of
Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila, told PREMIUM TIMES on Friday that he had
drawn the attention of his colleagues to Section 9 (3) of the constitution in
order to avoid a procedural error during the voting on Thursday.

He explained that with the defeat
of the amendment in the lower legislative chamber, the proposal was dead
because it meant that it would not be part of the aspects that would be
transmitted to the state legislature for concurrence.

Under the Constitution, the
president plays a crucial role in making any bill passed by the federal
legislature become law.

Section 58 (3) states, “Where a
bill has been passed by the House in which it originated, it shall be sent to
the other House, and it shall be presented to the President for assent when it
has been passed by the other House and agreement has been reached between the
two Houses on any amendment made to it.

“Where a bill is presented to the
President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof signify that he
assents or that he withholds assent.

“If the President refuses to sign
the bill into law within thirty-days of its referral to his desk, the bill dies
unless the National Assembly overrides the presidential veto by passing the bill
again with the support of at least a two-thirds majority in each chamber.”

“Where the President withholds
his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by a two-thirds majority,
the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be
required.”

During the last amendment between
2011 and 2015, the federal legislators had similarly attempted to strip the
president of powers to assent to amendments made to the Constitution.

The then president, Goodluck
Jonathan, had rejected multiple proposals laid out by the National Assembly as
part of a new Nigerian Constitution, including clauses stipulating free
education and healthcare for every Nigerian child.

Mr. Jonathan, in a seven-page
letter to the Legislature, said he could not sign the new proposals into law
due to ‘irregularities and an attempt by the lawmakers to violate the doctrine
of Separation of Powers.’

The former president said he
could not sign a proposal seeking to dispense with the president’s consent in
future constitutional amendments until the Senate and the House of
Representatives provided “credible evidence” showing the plan was approved by
the required number of federal and state lawmakers.

He also said a proposed clause to
give free education and health to Nigerians, could not stand as proposed as the
lawmakers as it failed to state clearly that such privileges could only be
accessed from a government school or hospital, respectively.

Following the disagreement, the
federal government instituted a suit at the Supreme Court to nullify the
amendments to the Constitution.

The government requested the
Supreme Court to give an order nullifying and setting aside Sections 3, 4, 12,
14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015
purportedly passed by the legislature.

In May 2015, a few days before
Mr. Jonathan left office following his defeat in that year’s presidential poll,
the Supreme Court ordered the federal government and the legislature to
maintain status quo on the amendment exercise.